Clothing Lifespans: What Should Be Measured and How
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
sustainability Article Clothing Lifespans: What Should Be Measured and How Ingun Grimstad Klepp 1, Kirsi Laitala 1,* and Stephen Wiedemann 2 1 Consumption Research Norway (SIFO), Oslo Metropolitan University, 0130 Oslo, Norway; [email protected] 2 Integrity Ag & Environment, 10511 New England Highway, Highfields, QLD 4352, Australia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +47-672-356-32 Received: 23 June 2020; Accepted: 30 July 2020; Published: 2 August 2020 Abstract: Increasing the use of each product, most often called longer lifespans, is an effective environmental strategy. This article discusses how garment lifespans can be described in order to be measured and compared. It answers two sub-questions: (1) what to measure (units), and (2) how to measure (methods). We introduce and define terms related to clothing lifespans and contribute to discussions about an appropriate functional unit for garments in life cycle assessments (LCA) and other environmental accounting tools. We use a global wardrobe survey to exemplify the units and methods. Clothing lifespans can be described and measured in years, the number of wears, cleaning cycles, and users. All have an independent value that show different and central aspects of clothing lifespans. A functional unit for LCAs should emphasise both the number of wears for all users as well as the service lifespan in years. Number of wears is the best measure for regular clothing, while number of years is most suited for occasion wear, because it is important to account for the need of more garments to cover all the relevant occasions during a specified time period. It is possible to study lifespan via carefully constructed surveys, providing key data relating to actual garment use. Keywords: lifespan; clothing; lifetimes; functional unit; reuse; laundry; possession span; LCA 1. Introduction Extending the use of products, often referred to as increasing product lifespans, is one of the most effective environmental strategies, as it has great potential to prevent waste and reduce production, consumption (as in, acquisition and disposal), and transport. This has been conceptually known, documented, and recognised for a long time—for example, in the waste hierarchy where prevention is the top priority [1]. Research has shown that improvements in the textile value chain are important and improve the efficiency of the production system, but at the same time are difficult, take time [2–4], and are often counteracted by increases in textile volumes [5,6], which makes extended use even more important. Extending the lifespans for 10% of t-shirts in the market would reduce circa 100,000 tonnes of CO2 eq and 2000 tonnes of waste per annum in the UK alone [7], provided the lifespan extension substitutes new purchases. The interest in research on product lifespans is increasing [8], and many designers work with developing longer-lasting clothes [9,10]. However, there is still only limited research that has focused specifically on clothing lifespans and which factors affect this [11,12]. Taghikhah et al. [13] state that it is not possible to even talk about sustainability without extending the definition of the supply chains to also account for consumers’ behaviour and their influence on the overall system performance. Better knowledge about the use phase of clothing is needed in the work on environmental accounting and improvement, such as LCAs (life cycle assessments) [14]. In working Sustainability 2020, 12, 6219; doi:10.3390/su12156219 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2020, 12, 6219 2 of 21 with product LCAs, functional units are used as measuring units, and defined by the “‘service delivered’, a quantified performance achieved within a given period of time” [15]. In clear contrast to this, LCAs in a clothing context often use a number of garments or a certain amount of material as the unit, leaving the use of the products out. Polizzi di Sorrentino et al. [16] argue that the functional unit should be based on measures of behaviour. Piontek et al. [17] suggest to use “one year of varied use of clothing” as a functional unit, enabling the comparison between a baseline scenario with part of the wardrobe rented. To develop a good functional unit, better knowledge about the use phase is needed [14]. There is a lack of knowledge about the relationship between different ways of describing and measuring the use phase [18]. It is urgent to obtain knowledge about how the service delivered so that the use best can be measured. This also includes greater precision in the use of concepts and terms. This article discusses how garment lifespans can be described in order to be measured and compared. We divide this into two sub-questions: 1. What to measure (units); 2. How to measure (methods). As our starting point, we use definitions that were developed by Murakami et al. [19] but have been further developed for clothing. Total lifespan: The duration clothing exists in our society in its original form, regardless of whether it still functions. Total lifespan starts when the product is manufactured and ready to wear regardless of whether it is sold, used, etc. Service lifespan denotes the duration of the period that the garment functions and can be put to use, including the duration of use by initial and subsequent users. Use is not only the hours worn on the body, but the entire period the clothing is worn by a user until the last time it is worn. This definition applies for the garments, not for owners. It starts when the first owner acquires it and ends when the last owner discards it. Possession span denotes how long one owner possesses the garment in question. Duration in use denotes how long one owner uses the garment in question. This is defined for an owner, not a garment, and therefore this is different from service lifespan. Duration in use differs from possession span in that it excludes the dead-storage span. It starts when the product is taken into use and ends the last time it is used. The term can also denote the time the product is actually used and exclude periods where the garment is unused, or only include the time the garment is worn on the body. For clothing, the term is difficult to define, and therefore we will return to and operationalise the term. Product age denotes the time span from the beginning of the life of the product (production) until the time of the study or another point of interest, such as a specific point in the lifespan. The physical lifespan: The time the garment can be put into use in the technical sense. In other words, how long the garment can be worn before it shows more signs of wear than considered acceptable. This is related to the durability (strength) of the garment and the way it has been cared for, and is sometimes also called the technical lifespan. The degree of wear considered acceptable is subject to both physical considerations (i.e., whether a garment can fulfil its function) and also includes social considerations—for example, a slightly frayed garment may not be acceptable as formal wear, while the same degree of wear and tear on an outdoor workwear garment may be acceptable. Hence, it is difficult to define physical lifespan without definitions influenced by social standards and expectations. The physical lifespan starts when the garment is produced. Social lifespan denotes the time the garment is deemed socially acceptable. As with physical lifespan, this will also be subject to cultural and individual variations, and will vary based on the type of garment. It is connected to the concept of quality “during use” [20] in contrast to pre-use quality, which it is possible to measure through industry standards. Anthesis and the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) [21] have used the terms physical and emotional durability in describing physical and social lifespans. Socially durable garments are those that can be used over a long period of time and still be appreciated or accepted. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6219 3 of 21 The length of the service lifespan depends on the social and physical lifespans. The shortest of the two will determine the end point. To answer the research question, we will start by discussing how lifespans can best be described and measured based on previous research. This is followed by a method section where we introduce the international survey data. In the results section, we present examples related to various ways of measuring clothing lifespans. Finally, we conclude by answering the research question and point towards which areas need further research. 2. What to Measure? Product lifespans can address the age as well as the timespan products are in function [22]. Lifespan for durable products is usually measured in years, but for many products this is supplemented with other measurement units, such as kilometers for vehicles. The lifespan of lightbulbs and other electrical products are measured in how many hours of use they offer. More emphasis is placed on duration in operation than duration in stand-by [22]. Describing the length of the use phase is simpler for products such as fridges that are usually in constant active use throughout the use phase, and when no longer functional they are replaced by a new one. In contrast, the clothing use phase includes active and passive periods, and acquirement of new clothing does not necessarily replace an existing product but may expand the wardrobe of the owner [23]. The concept of duration in use is therefore complicated. In the following, we will discuss different units used to describe lifespans based on a literature survey on clothing consumption [24]. In addition to years, the units include the number of wears, the number of users, and cleaning cycles.